735 Fed.Appx. 448 (9th Cir. 2018), 16-70818, Olivares v. Sessions

Docket Nº:16-70818
Citation:735 Fed.Appx. 448
Party Name:Jose J. OLIVARES, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Attorney:Jose J. Olivares, Pro Se Rosanne Perry, Trial Attorney, Jessica E. Burns, Esquire, Trial Attorney, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, ...
Judge Panel:Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:August 23, 2018
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 448

735 Fed.Appx. 448 (9th Cir. 2018)

Jose J. OLIVARES, Petitioner,

v.

Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-70818

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

August 23, 2018

Submitted August 15, 2018 [*]

Editorial Note:

Governing the citation to unpublished opinions please refer to federal rules of appellate procedure rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 9th Cir. Rule 36-3.

Jose J. Olivares, Pro Se

Rosanne Perry, Trial Attorney, Jessica E. Burns, Esquire, Trial Attorney, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, Agency No. AXXX-XX4-094

Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM[**]

Jose J. Olivares, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the

Page 449

Board of Immigration Appeals’ ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider, and review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Olivares’s sixth motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred, where he filed the motion more than 20 years after his final order of removal, and did not show the motion was subject to any exceptions to the filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (3).

Treated as a motion to reconsider, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion as untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2).

We reject Olivaress contentions that the agency failed to sufficiently consider evidence and arguments, failed to properly consider all factors, and insufficiently explained its decision. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency need not write an exegesis on every contention)...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP